TMingyur wrote:Now that is really funny. The words are written there yet there is desire for other words.Why is this?

Because there appears to be some disagreement about what the words mean. Clearly Retro understands them in a different way to how I do, based on his comments about how others have explained and practised the Dhamma. He is, of course, free to post what he likes, but it is much easier to snipe at other approaches than to clearly explain one's own.

Cittasanto wrote:just to chip in my nonsenseto my understanding Dependent Arising correlates to the Second Noble Truth and Dependent Cessation with the Third Noble Truth, See DN22 for an example, and to check.

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. (...) From birth as a requisite condition, then old age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress.

"And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress?

"From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. (...) From the cessation of birth, then old age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Cittasanto wrote:just to chip in my nonsenseto my understanding Dependent Arising correlates to the Second Noble Truth and Dependent Cessation with the Third Noble Truth, See DN22 for an example, and to check.

retrofuturist wrote:Indeed. Which is why I found it odd that the "uninstructed run-of-the-mill person" viewpoint was being valorized, in preference to the Dhamma-Eye.

How did you come to the conclusion that "this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more" is a viewpoint of puthujjana?

Cittasanto wrote:just to chip in my nonsenseto my understanding Dependent Arising correlates to the Second Noble Truth and Dependent Cessation with the Third Noble Truth, See DN22 for an example, and to check.

I knew it was somewhere and DN22 didn't specifically support of denounce it, but could be interpreted to incline in that way, however memory is fuzzy and not got the resources now to check references properly yet.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

piotr wrote:How did you come to the conclusion that "this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more" is a viewpoint of puthujjana?

From the sutta itself. "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements..."

retrofuturist wrote:From the sutta itself. "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements"

The sutta says that the more preferable viewpoint of puthujjana is to hold body as a self. It doesn't say that "body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more" is a viewpoint of putthujana and therefore should be abandoned.

Piotr wrote:It doesn't say that "body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more" is a viewpoint of putthujana and therefore should be abandoned.

Well if the initial sutta reference alone was insufficient for you, cross reference it with MN 1 and you'll see even more clearly that it is putthujana view to be abandoned...

The Putthujana

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

(repeated for the other three elements)

The Trainee

"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

(repeated for the other three elements)

The Arahant

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

(repeated for the other three elements)

So not only does SN 12.61: Assutavā (Uninstructed) Sutta call it putthujana view, but MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta calls it putthujana view and explicitly says it should be abandoned, in order for proper comprehension to occur.

"But the instructed noble disciple understands views, understands their origin, their cessation and the way leading to the cessation of views. For him views cease; and he is freed from birth, old age, death, from sorrows, griefs, ills, tribulations, he is freed from suffering, I say."

"He understands views", this means that he understands what views are.

" understands their origin", this means that he understands how they have originated from ignorance.

" their cessation", this means that he understands how they will cease when ignorance ceases.

" and the way leading to the cessation of views", this means that he understands the method of practice which will bring about the cessation of views.

He follows that method of practice and: "for him views cease", and he is freed from birth, old age, death, from sorrows, griefs, ills, tribulations, he is freed from suffering, I say."

If he were to try to see views as arising and ceasing every moment, it would be of no use to him.

vinasp wrote:Just answer the question Retro. How long does a view last? SN 12.61 does not answer that question.

Yes it does.

On one level (Dhamma-eye), a view/perspective exists for as long as it an object of mind-consciousness (i.e. until the monkey jumps away), and with respect to that view, "a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?" (SN 22.95). Even then the view is not necessarily static, and it only retains its "viewness" whilst the observer attributes some inherent "viewness" to it.

On another level (Putthujana-eye), a view's duration extends continuously from the first time that the idea is thought, to the last. This putthujana view is necessarily rooted in self-view. In other words, it necessarily requires that there is a self that holds this view, and keeps it in existence even when it's not an object of mind-consciousness for that self, and whilst that self is in dreamless sleep.

vinasp wrote:If he were to try to see views as arising and ceasing every moment, it would be of no use to him.

Setting aside the hornet's nest of "momentariness", how do you think "He understands views", "understands their origin", "their cessation", "and the way leading to the cessation of views" occurs, Vincent? The Phena Sutta shows how mental volitions should be observed and appropriately examined. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Are you proposing an alternative method by which to understand views?

If you're insistent on regarding views exclusively in the manner outlined in your previous post, your views will always be rooted in self, and whilst there is value in being able to express the nature of views in conventional terms for the purposes of communication (for example, the Buddha had to speak to putthujanas in language that would to enable them to break-through to the Dhamma), it is not viewing in accord with the Dhamma eye that sees "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma" if you regard that your depiction is how it really is.

For a topic on the Dhamma eye that sees "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma", there seems to be a lot of resistance to actually discussing it. To quote Mike from his OP, "Whether one agrees with the exact conclusion regarding how arising-and-ceasing is experienced, it seems undeniable that the mundane observation that "things arise and cease" is not what is being talked about in these sutta passages." Rather than set up base camp where we are, perhaps we should consider and take upon the challenge that Mike has kindly presented us.

vinasp wrote:Could you please explain how you understand a (wrong) view.

To me, a view is a belief/filter/frame that (if wrong) has the power to distort understanding. If right, it has the potency to facilitate right understanding. View is the forerunner in the path, because it is what determines whether the remainder of the fabricated eightfold path is "right" (samma) in its formation.

You reference "delusion" and "obsessions" but I would regard them as the consequences of wrong view, rather than views themselves.

You say that a view is a belief, which may be right or wrong. In MN 11 the Buddha says that there are four kinds of clinging. One of these is "view-clinging", which originates from craving, which has its origin in feeling, and so on.

How do you understand this clinging in relation to the beliefs which you call views?